The Essence of September 11th 2nd Edition

By Bill Whitehouse

This is a work which provides an excellent summary of the essential themes, issues, facts, and questions concerning the tragic events of 9/11. This book engages the events surrounding 9/11 from a very different perspective -- namely that of a member of a hypothetical grand jury which is faced with the task of critically examining the available evidence concerning all manner of 9/11-related topics in order to determine whether or not a further public inquiry into 9/11 is appropriate and necessary. Many questions are raised in this book. The only certain answer which arises out of the pages of this work is that, after careful review, the available evidence indicates the government's official version of 9/11 is not tenable in either principle or detail.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Bill Whitehouse
• Release date: Oct 14, 2011
• ISBN: 9781452430300

Bill Whitehouse

Bill Whitehouse received an honors B.A. in Social Relations from Harvard University and a doctorate in Educational Theory from the University of Toronto. Dr. Whitehouse has spent more than 43 years exploring Islam and its mystical dimension, known in the West as the Sufi Path. In addition, he has counseled individuals from the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Europe who have sought relief from the trauma of spiritual abuse and fundamentalism. He has taught at univerisites in the United States and Canada. Dr. Whitehouse has been pursuing the Sufi Path for approximately 43 years. For nearly 16 years, he enjoyed a close working relationship with a Sufi saint of the 20th Century who has since passed away. Dr. Whitehouse produces the Sufi Study Circle Podcast and is the owner of Bilquees Press and the Interrogative Imperative Institute.

Book preview

The Essence of September 11th

By Bill Whitehouse

Smashwords Edition,

License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

© 2008, 2011

By Bill Whitehouse

Bilquees Press

P.0. Box 831

Bangor, Maine

04402

All rights are reserved. With the exception of that which is done in accordance with the fair use clause of the Copyright Act, no portion of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the author.

2nd Edition Published 2011

Bilquees Press 

Dedicated to those who lost their lives on 9/11 and to their families and to all those who would come to lose their lives as a result of the many ways in which the ‘official’ investigations into the events of 9/11 were mishandled.

Table of Contents

1)       Starting Points

2)       Some Introductory Comments

3)       Snake Plissken and the Bumble Planes

4)       Boss, Ze Planes

5)       Case of the Mysterious Pod and Windowless Plane

6)       I Command You To Stand Down

7)       The Walls of Jericho

8)       The Two Towers

9)       Tora! Tora! Tora!

10)   Residual Comments

11)   Ending Points

12) Did You Know

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part4

Part 5

13) C Is For Conspiracy

14) Communicating With Fearful Hearts

15) Explosive Questions – A Poem

Sources

1 – Starting Points

I am not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. I am not in favor of bipartisanship, but rather I aspire to be non-partisan in my inquiries.

I have no power except for the choices I make in relation to my day-to-day life. I have no money except that which I earn through a very small pension from the Canadian government, along with what I earn through teaching psychology on a part-time basis, as well as through the selling of a few books which, by the Grace of God, have been written and self-published.

I am a Muslim by choice, and I have been a traveler on the Sufi mystical path for more than 30 years. However, the manner in which I pursue these commitments is quite different than is the case for some who call themselves either Muslim or Sufi, and, consequently, I am often considered something of a pariah in both worlds.

There are no family or friends of mine who were among the approximately 3,000 people who were murdered on 9/11. Moreover, I didn’t lose a business or any property at the World Trade Center that day, and I didn’t lose any money on the stock market as a result of those events (I didn’t gain anything either because I do not own any stocks).

In the aftermath of 9/11, I was reported to the FBI as a possible terrorist. I know this through other individuals and not via the FBI.

I had been described by the individual who reported me as someone who had no visible means of support (I was surviving on unemployment insurance at the time) and who had a state of the art computer (it was an ‘As Seen On TV’ purchase that was an upgrade of my old computer which had been a gift, but it was far from a state of the art computer). I also had been described as a Sufi who was engaged in secretive activities (because of the relative absence of Sufis and Muslims in the area, I did, to a certain degree, pray and chant various litanies by myself, plus, due to financial circumstances and a variety of life contingencies, I had moved quite a few times in the previous several years, so, I had few friends or acquaintances in the area where I had just moved prior to 9/11, and, therefore, privacy was sort of a natural aspect of my life at the time). Fortunately, I did not end up in Guantánamo.

In the late ‘60s, I was a draft resister. I didn’t agree with the taking of life then – especially in relation to fabricated and self-serving reasons that sought to justify the wholesale slaughter and oppression of a people who were not seeking to oppress America – and I don’t agree with the taking of life now ... whether this be in the form of suicide bombers who kill thousands of innocents and, yet, have the temerity to refer to themselves as Muslim, or in the form of American military forces who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan and, yet, have the temerity to refer to themselves as liberators and freedom fighters.

I do not belong to any group or organization because, by inclination and experience, I do not care for the political machinations, positioning for power, and abuse of social dynamics that tend to go on in relation to almost every single organization I have come across both within Muslim and non-Muslim communities. I do not wish to seek to control others, and I do not appreciate others trying to control me.

I am not a member of the ‘9/11 movement for truth’, but neither do I stand shoulder to shoulder with those who ascribe to the ‘official’ version of 9/11. However, I try to be a reflective observer of both sides.

I have stated the foregoing considerations so that a reader may have some small context within which to place that which follows. I do not have either a religious or political purpose for writing this book.

It would not surprise me if 19 people calling themselves Muslim were to have arrogated to themselves sufficient delusional justification to believe they have the right to take the lives of innocent people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. This would not surprise me – sad though it is to admit as much – because I have witnessed, first hand, a comparable sort of arrogance, ignorance, and delusion in many places within the Muslim world, both in North America and abroad.

On the other hand, I would not be surprised to discover that rogue elements within the US military/intelligence/political/corporate community had sought to arrogate to themselves the sort of self-serving justification needed to kill some 3,000 individuals on September 11, 2001 in order to further a pathological agenda for controlling the world’s people and resources. Such a possibility would not surprise me because I have been a first-hand witness to many of the events of the last 50 years in which millions of innocent people have been murdered, oppressed, disappeared, and exploited by those in the political, military, and corporate worlds whose moral depravity, narcissism, and psychopathic pathologies seem to have no boundaries.

Nor would I be surprised if it turned out that many of the events on 9/11 were the result of a perfect storm of incompetence, confusion, and human error. Evidence for the existence of all three of these factors is an omnipresent reality in our collective, everyday life.

All but 70 of the 585 pages of The 9/11 Commission Report from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States chaired by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton were directed at building a case for who was to blame for 9/11 (and what to do about it) rather than being directed toward fully and carefully analyzing the nature of the events which transpired on 9/11. In my opinion, the foregoing ratios should have been reversed – with 515 pages being devoted to critically analyzing the events of 9/11 and only 70 pages being devoted to matters pertaining to who did it, together with what to do about that individual or those individuals ... for it makes no sense to get carried away with the who if one does not have an adequate understanding of what may have transpired that day. In other words, one should have some understanding of, and insight into, what was done before one will be in a position to determine whether this or that individual was capable of doing that ‘what’.

Even if the 19 hijackers named by the FBI are responsible -- in some, yet to be determined way -- for the events of 9/11, one might also like to consider if there were others who could have aided and abetted those 19 individuals to do what they are alleged to have done. Possibly, if the hypothetical grand jury on which I am serving [more on this issue shortly] were to indict the aforementioned 19, there also might be a determination made by that fictional grand jury concerning the probable existence of additional, un-indicted co-conspirators.

The so-called ‘official’ version is not the only purported explanation for 9/11 which seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time on trying to determine the who of 9/11, along with what to do about this who. Indeed, an increasing amount of pages and books from the 9/11 truth movement seem to be directed at identifying possible perpetrators within the intelligence, military, political, and corporate communities in relation to the events of 9/11, along with suggestions about what people should do about this.

Whatever the merits of the foregoing respective cases may be, they undermine and detract from attempts to focus on the ‘what’ of 9/11 rather than the ‘who’ and ‘why’ of that day. Consequently, in this book, I will try to concentrate as much as possible on the issue of ‘what’ and put aside the other matters for another day.

Within much of the following, I have decided to assume the role of someone who is on a grand jury and consider how such a person might reflect on, and think about, an array of evidence, testimony, and documents concerning the events of 9/11. In other words, I see my role to be one of, among other things, asking a lot of questions about things which don’t make sense to me or about which I wish to know more, and, as well, I would see my role as being one of trying, in relation to everything I considered, to exercise critical, independent judgment before casting a vote or making a decision.

In a grand jury, a prosecutor or district attorney brings certain evidence, documents, and testimony before the members of that jury for purposes of either investigating certain possibilities and/or seeking an indictment against one or more persons believed to have been responsible for this or that crime. However, grand jurors are not bound by the intentions of the prosecutor but can choose to go in whatever direction their individual consciences dictate with respect to either the matters being brought up by the prosecutor or any other matters of legitimate interest to the members of the grand jury.

The grand jury is a people’s court. It does not belong to the government other than in the sense that a given grand jury must be convened by the government, but once the jury is convened there is absolutely nothing to prevent that grand jury from moving in any direction it wishes with respect to the issues and problems being brought before it by the government.

The members of a grand jury may ask for whatever evidence seems relevant to any matter that is of concern to them. Moreover, they have the latitude to request the prosecutor or district attorney to subpoena witnesses or documents which are considered to be germane to the matters at hand.

For purposes of this book, I am going to treat The 9/11 Commission  Report, as well as the book: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy  Theories Can’t Stand Up To The Facts edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, along with various NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) documents as the primary evidence or testimony that is being brought forth by a hypothetical prosecutor who is investigating the events of 9/11 on behalf of an unknown governmental body. However, additional documents, testimony, and various forms of evidence from sources other than the foregoing three works will be introduced from time to time.

My task, as a member of my hypothetical grand jury, is to try to make sense of what I am being told. In addition, my task will be to both ask questions about what is, in a manner of speaking, being presented to me as well as to try to render critical, sound judgment concerning all that is being considered and analyzed during the hypothetical grand jury deliberations.

When a district attorney or federal prosecutor convenes a grand jury, they do so with their own purposes in mind. I would like to reiterate a point made earlier – namely, as a grand juror, I am not restricted to the purposes for which a given grand jury has been convened, but, rather, I am bound by considerations of morality, critical judgment, truth, logic, evaluation of evidence, and justice which may, or may not, coincide with the interests of the government.

The contents of this book are the thoughts, ideas, questions, problems, and issues which have occurred to me while I have read a variety of materials concerning the events of 9/11. The contents of this book constitute the sort of deliberations I might make as a member of a grand jury that had been convened to inquire into the matters of 9/11.

However, as indicated earlier, I am more interested in the ‘what’ of 9/11 than the ‘who’ or ‘why’. I will leave to others in additional hypothetical grand juries to raise questions about the ‘who’ and the ‘why’ with respect to 9/11.

The questions which I have revolve about the nature of the ‘what’ of 9/11. What actually took place on 9/11; what evidence is there concerning these matters; what is the credibility of such evidence or testimony, and, what questions or problems arise in conjunction with seeking to determine this ‘what’?

In a grand jury the members do not profess to be experts about this or that subject. Their function is to consider the evidence, ask questions about that evidence, deliberate upon such evidence, and make recommendations concerning the need for having access to further information through the examination of additional witnesses and/or documents, which can be subpoenaed by the government, in order to determine whether, or not, such evidence supports the weight of an indictment.

Moreover, the last several hundred years of American history have demonstrated that people from all walks of life, economic status, racial and ethnic backgrounds have been very, very good, for the most part, in being able to arrive at decisions which often are capable of capturing the complexities and nuances of cases that explore a variety of technical issues involving science, engineering, religion, business, and politics. Jurors do not necessarily have to be able to conduct experiments or write technical papers in some given subject to competently perform as a juror. Rather, jurors have to be able to assess whether the structure of the thinking involved in such activities constitutes a coherent whole that can be accepted either beyond a reasonable doubt or which may be considered to be consistent with a preponderance of the evidence for any given case.

Jurors are often instructed by judges that the only tool necessary to be a juror is common sense. This tool is invaluable in assessing the credibility of witnesses, or the strength of an argument, or the quality of information being entered into evidence.

The only other quality needed by a juror is to enter into a case without any preconceptions about the truth of a matter. Prejudice and bias render a juror incapable of fulfilling his or her function within the jury process.

In this regard, the present book is not rooted in any presuppositions about the identity of who the guilty parties may be in the matter of 9/11. On the other hand, this book does critically examine the issue of whether, or not, there is good reason to believe that there is a fundamental need for further public inquiry into the events of 9/11.

Jurors – whether through a grand jury or traverse jury (trial jury) -- are determiners of the facts. This function of fact determination is not the function of the judge, the prosecution, expert witnesses, appellate courts, or even the Supreme Court ... this remains the province of the people, and it constitutes one of the bedrocks in which democracy is rooted.

The grand jury system was created because the people who came to the place that came to be known as the United States of America had a healthy disrespect for the sort of abuses which were inherent in the exercise of institutional power. The grand jury was intended to serve as the first and last bastion of defense against any government being able to oppress people – intellectually, socially, religiously, politically, financially, and economically.

It is all very well that the federal government has undertaken a study which resulted in the release of The 9/11 Commission Report. However, the ultimate moral and civic responsibility for accepting or rejecting that document, either in part or wholly, rests entirely with the people and not with the government.

Finally, in the following pages, I have no theory to offer concerning the events of 9/11. No conspiracy theory of whatever variety [whether ‘official’ or otherwise] is being put forth in the following pages.

My task is to consider the tenability of evidence in relation to claims being made by various individuals who seek to give expression to the ‘official’ version (e.g., The 9/11 Commission Report), along with the views of those who might wish to serve as defenders of that perspective (e.g., Debunking 9/11 Myths by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan or some of the NIST documents).

What is being offered in the following pages is, hopefully, a rigorous examination of a set of data. The not-so-hypothetical case before the hypothetical grand jury on which I am serving is this: Has the government made its case with respect to the events of September 11,2001? More specifically, has the government shown that the crimes committed on 9/11 were not only perpetrated by the 19 Arab individuals who have been named by the FBI, but has the government shown that those 19 individuals were acting alone and were operating without the assistance of other people within the United States?

Of course, there is evidence – as discussed in The 9/11 Commission Report – which implicates other individuals beyond the 19 alleged hijackers of September 11, 2001 as also having played a role in helping to bring about the events of 9/11. However, the concern which I have as a hypothetical grand juror is the following question: Could the alleged 19 hijackers have perpetrated the crimes with which they have been charged without assistance of a person (or persons) unknown who is (are) a citizen (citizens) of the United States?

The reasons for citing The 9/11 Commission Report as one of the primary documents for my hypothetical grand jury hearing is obvious since that book is considered by many to be the definitive account of the events of 9/11. However, there also are several reasons why I have selected Debunking 9/11 Myths as a second basic document on which to focus within the following pages.

First, although there have been a number of works released to the public which do explore various aspects of the 9/11 tragedy (e.g, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11 by Gerald Posner and Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War On Terror by Richard A. Clarke) Debunking 9/11 Myths is an enlarged version of an article that appeared in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, and both the original article as well as enhanced follow-up seem to have a rather unique sort of purpose in the 9/11 literature. More specifically, each of these latter two documents purport to give expression to an attempt to examine the credibility and tenability of various ideas, questions, interpretations, and judgments concerning the events of 9/11, but – and, I think this is very important – never (not for a nanosecond) do the researchers, writers, participants, or editors of either the Popular Mechanics article or the subsequent book based on that article raise any questions concerning the ‘official’ story which also happens to be a conspiracy theory – allegedly, the very focus of the Popular Mechanics article and book.

As such, Debunking 9/11 Myths, along with its progenitor article, do not appear to be an attempt to look at available evidence and possibilities concerning conspiracy theories in an evenhanded manner but, rather, seem to be an attempt to critique only those approaches to the 9/11 issue which do not accept the ‘official’ version of what happened on 9/11. As such, Debunking 9/11 Myths is akin to a witness for the prosecution who is seeking to challenge the credibility of ideas which run counter to the ‘official’ story of 9/11.

Part of the task of a grand juror is to assess the value, weight, and credibility of such witnesses. Since Debunking 9/11 Myths appears to be an attempt to foreclose on the possibility that the truth concerning 9/11 is anything other than what the ‘official’ story says is the case, I feel it is a worthwhile exercise to critically examine what goes on within the testimony of that ‘witness’.

Another reason for selecting Debunking 9/11 Myths as an appropriate subject of investigation is because there appear to me to be certain parallels between the way in which the book Debunking 9/11  Myths argues its case and the manner in which The 9/11 Commission  Report presents its case concerning the events of 9/11. If one understands the character of the problems which arise in Debunking  9/11 Myths, and if one understands the nature of the issues which are either not addressed by that book or are addressed in problematic ways, and if one understands the nature of the errors which are made in Debunking 9/11 Myths, and if one understands the questions which have not been raised or adequately answered by Debunking 9/11  Myths, and if one understands the character of the holes or lacunae that are present in the form of argumentation being used in Debunking  9/11 Myths, then I believe one will have insight into the structural character of the nature, problems, questions, lacunae, and errors of The 9/11 Commission Report. Moreover, if one has insight into all of the foregoing, then one may understand why there needs to be not only a new investigation into the events of 9/11 but, as well, why there needs to be an investigation into the entire process through which The 9/11  Commission Report was generated.

The people who died on 9/11 deserve this. The people who lost love ones on 9/11 deserve this. The American people deserve this. The people who have died and lost loved ones in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve this -- whether these be Afghanis, Iraqis, Americans, or people from other countries – who have been caught up in the hostilities there.

2 - Some Introductory Comments

After having read the document: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why  Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To The Facts edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, there are many issues with which I am concerned. First and foremost, what strikes me is the strain of intellectual dishonesty which courses persistently through the aforementioned book.

More specifically, on almost every page of that book, one reads about the ‘conspiracy theorists’, their wacky ideas, questionable allegiances, and their failure to identify or evaluate the available evidence in what is, according to the editors of this book, the ‘proper’ manner. Within the foregoing book, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is used in a pejorative fashion at every turn, and, yet, the editors of that work do not ever point out or admit that what they call the ‘mainstream’ account of 9/11 – e.g., the one put forth by The 9/11  Commission Report – is, itself, a full-blooded conspiracy theory.

According to The 9/11 Commission Report, a group of 19-plus individuals, at the behest of ‘Usama bin Laden and others within the command structure of a group called al-Qaeda, planned and cooperated over a period of many years to commit criminal acts on September 11, 2001 against passengers and crews in four commercial jets, as well as the people and buildings of the World Trade Center and, as well, employees of the Pentagon. This is the essence of a conspiracy theory.

Of course, one might wish to argue, as a fall-back position, that, well, yes, what is described above is, technically, a conspiracy theory, but it constitutes and gives expression to a perspective which is shared by the mainstream of reasoned judgment. In point of fact, one might not agree with such a contention because, as a number of polls (including Zogby) have shown, nearly half of the residents of New York City – Ground Zero for whatever conspiracy theory one wishes to adopt – do not accept the ‘official’ position of the U.S. government concerning many of the events of 9/11, and, if we factor in the rather sizable number of ‘I’m not sure’ responses, then even within the boundaries of the city where more people perished-- by a considerable margin -- on September 11, 2001 than anywhere else in the United States, the ‘official’ position does not necessarily constitute the ‘mainstream’ perspective.

The official version may be mainstream in the minds of the current administration of the federal government, or it may be considered to be mainstream in the minds of the commissioners and researchers of The 9/11 Commission Report, but for a lot of people around the world, the so-called ‘official’ version does not constitute mainstream thinking.

Furthermore, irrespective of whether, or not, one wishes to label the ‘official’ version as mainstream, it is a conspiracy theory through and through.

When people start wagging a finger at other people and calling them ‘conspiracy theorists’ at every opportunity while not only ignoring and disowning their own roots in conspiracy theory but, as well, try to re-frame the situation and sanitize their conspiracy theory as the ‘mainstream’ ‘official’ position, I begin to wonder about their motivations for doing this ... I begin to wonder about their credibility ... I begin to want to take a very careful look at what they are saying and doing.

According to the editors of Debunking 9/11 Myths, "The goal of this book is not to tell the complete story of what happened on September 11, 2001. There are numerous excellent sources, including The 9/11 Commission’s Report and the New York Times and other newspapers, that chronicle the attacks in painful detail. Instead, this book aims only to answer the questions raised by conspiracy theorists themselves." [page xx] This statement is misleading in a number of ways.

First, as becomes painfully clear, very quickly, the editors do not have any intention of actually trying to fulfill what they claim is the purpose of their book. In other words, they do not aim only to answer the questions raised by conspiracy theorists themselves, but, rather, they aim only to address the questions which they believe are raised by particular kinds of conspiracy theories – preferably, and especially, those conspiracy theories and theorists that make claims which the editors of Debunking 9/11 Myths feel are relatively easy to ridicule and/or de-construct (and there will be more on this issue later in the book).

In my opinion, no honest, sincere effort is made within the pages of Debunking 9/11 Myths to take on the more considered and well- constructed facets of those positions which seek to raise important questions about the events of 9/11. But, rather, only pieces, here and there, are cherry-picked (to employ a term that the editors, themselves, use in relation to those dimensions of conspiracy theory which the editors wish to rail against), while many substantive aspects of those same theories are left unaddressed by the editors of the aforementioned book – in other words, there is much more to the writings of, for example, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Michel Chossudovsky, Eric Hufschmid, Thierry Meyssan, and others that are mentioned in pages of Debunking 9/11 Myths, and, as a result, one gets a very distorted picture of the full position of the latter individuals noted above.

Since no one is perfect, we are all going to make mistakes. Consequently, when someone writes about any given subject, it is very likely that some mistake or other will be made, and it is very likely that not every claim which is made will necessarily be tenable.

Almost any idea can be made to appear to be spawned by the lunatic fringe if one re-frames and reconstructs such ideas in a way that renders the idea into a caricature of its original nature. When anyone takes isolated remnants and tries to reduce that understanding down to just the isolated pieces one wishes to consider rather than the fullness of the original, then there is some unfairness of presentation at the heart of what is taking place.

I have studied much, but not all, of what is available to be read on the subject of 9/11. Most of this is in book form, but I have visited quite a few web sites, and I have watched more than a few videos on this issue.

There is a certain amount of the foregoing material which I find less than compelling and quite speculative ... with no real conclusive evidence to back it up. There is other data, information, evidence, and documents associated with the foregoing books, web sites, and videos which is quite a bit more compelling because it is backed up with evidence that gives one – or it should -- pause to reflect on such matters much more carefully rather than be too quick to dismiss what is being labeled by some as ‘conspiracy bunk’.

The editors of Debunking 9/11 Myths seem to be far more preoccupied with identifying the less than rigorous or entirely speculative material that is available than, unfortunately, they are interested in engaging some of the material which is available that is rigorously advanced and which is far less speculative but which is critical of the so-called ‘mainstream’ or ‘official’ position.

For instance, the editors of the aforementioned book do not raise one single query concerning the accuracy, tenability, or credibility of The 9/11 Commission’s Report. Yet, the Commission’s report is a conspiracy theory, and one wonders why the editors have not tried to live up to their stated goal of addressing the questions raised by conspiracy theories, themselves.

Of course, I have engaged in a little re-framing of this issue myself since the editors of Debunking 9/11 Myths did not say they were going to answer the questions that are raised by conspiracy theories, but, instead, said something quite different – namely, that they were going to answer the questions which the conspiracy theorists, themselves, raised.

Since The 9/11 Commission Report did not raise any questions about itself, then, seemingly, questions concerning the tenability, credibility, rigor, judiciousness, and accuracy of that report need never darken the doorway of the editors of Debunking 9/11 Myths. This is a clever exercise in either misdirection or, at the very least, the manner in which bias and prejudice blind one to looking at an issue honestly.

By assuming that everything which the 9/11 Commission says is true, and because that Commission did not have the integrity to question its own proceedings in a non-partisan fashion, the only miscreants who are left to be put in their place are the conspiracy nutcases ... not the official, mainstream conspiracy nutcases, but those other ones. When one assumes one’s conclusions, how easy things become – unless, of course, one wishes to try to work toward the truth of things.

Before beginning to undertake an examination of Debunking 9/11  Myths, I would like to begin with something which may seem quite shocking to many individuals who believe they know what went on in relation to 9/11.

More specifically, recently I visited the web site for the FBI and confirmed something which I had read elsewhere but wanted to verify for myself. The following is what I discovered.

Although ‘Usama bin Laden is wanted by the FBI in conjunction with the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, he is not wanted in conjunction with the events of 9/11. Indeed, Robert Mueller III, Director of the FBI, has said in this regard: The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.

In other words, on the basis of no less an authority than the FBI, there is a complete absence of any paper evidence which ties ‘Usama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. Does this mean that he is innocent? Not necessarily, but there is one other thing to consider before pressing on with the main focus of the present book.

On December 13, 2001 a video was released through the Pentagon – but for which no single Pentagon individual wishes to claim responsibility. The video purportedly shows bin Laden claiming responsibility for the events of 9/11. Among other things, the individual on the video is reported to be saying: We calculated in advance the number of casualties. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all ... due to my experience in this field. I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.

This video has sometimes been referred to as ‘the smoking gun’ video due to its apparent demonstration that ‘Usama bin Laden was the ring leader for the 9/11 conspiracy. However, ‘Houston, we may have a problem’.

A facial analysis has been conducted which compares the facial features of the man in the aforementioned video against a number of ‘Usama bin Laden photographs from al-Jazeera television. This analysis claimed to show that there were substantial differences in nose width, as well as the length of the nose to ear measurement, between the individual in the video and the pictures of bin Laden – measurements whose nature, in an adult, one would expect to remain the same over time.

In addition, the person depicted in the foregoing video is photographed writing something with his right hand. Yet, on the FBI wanted poster, it clearly states, under the ‘Remarks’ section, that bin Laden is left-handed

Supposedly, the video in question was found by some soldiers who were in Afghanistan and located the video in, according to some account, Jalalabad and, according to other accounts, in Kandahar. The identity of these soldiers, or the house where the video was found, or how the video was discovered all seem to be unknown.

Apparently, not even the FBI accepts the provenance for the Pentagon video. As pointed out earlier, the Director of the FBI has gone on record to indicate there is no paper trail which has been uncovered in the treasure trove of information acquired in the United States or Afghanistan that ties the 9/11 hijackers to, for example, ‘Usama bin Laden.

In addition to the foregoing considerations, I have some questions about the words which are reportedly uttered by the individual in the ‘smoking gun’ video. According to the person in the video tape, he was more optimistic than were his fellow co-conspirators with respect to the potential damage that could be done by the jets crashing into the WTC twin towers. This ‘smoking gun’ individual makes references to his experience in such matters and, then goes on to talk about how he had imagined that the jet fuel in the hijacked planes would ignite and melt the iron structures of the buildings and lead to their collapse – at least on the floors where the planes hit and above.

I’m a little curious as to what ‘experience’ the individual in the ‘smoking gun’ video is referring. Although I do not profess to be on intimate terms with the life of ‘Usama bin Laden, Iam not familiar with any hijackings prior to 9/11 which he committed, nor am I familiar with any instances prior to 9/11 in which he had been able to use hijacked airplanes as missiles, nor am I familiar with any instances prior to 9/11 in which bin Laden was known to have participated in an operation in which jet fuel had been used to melt iron and, thereby, lead to the collapse, either partial or complete, of a steel-framed building.

To be sure, bin Laden did, for a short time, have something to do with his family’s construction business. However, this is more likely to have been in relation to the business and management end of things rather than in relation to actually getting one’s hands dirty with the physical construction of buildings.

Moreover, while it is possible that during his exposure to the family business he learned a little about how certain kinds of building are designed and put up and, maybe, a little about how they might be brought down, nonetheless, if one of the lessons he claims to have learned from this construction experience is how a jet fuel fire could bring down a steel-framed building, then one may have a clue as to why the family sent him to Afghanistan rather than believing him to have a bright future with the family business.

Indeed, as expressed in the ‘smoking gun’ video, it is obvious that the individual in that excerpt knew little or nothing about the structure of the World Trade Center tower buildings or what it would take for a jet fuel fire to cause iron to melt and bring about even the partial collapse of a steel-framed building. Jet fuel would have been consumed in any such fires within the first 5-10 minutes of spilling into the WTC towers – and everyone (even the supporters of the ‘official’ theory) is agreed upon this point.

Consequently, jet fuel would not have been around long enough to be able to bring any of the core or peripheral steel columns of the north and south towers to the temperature of melting – in fact, during the 5- 10 minutes of their short duration, jet fuel fires, in and of themselves, would not even have generated the requisite sustained temperatures that are capable of melting steel under the most ideal of circumstances within the twin towers. Notwithstanding what has just been said, there is, to be sure, an on-going argument about whether the fires started by the jet fuel at the WTC could have created conditions via the burning of, for example, office furniture and so on which, eventually, would have led to the loss of some degree of strength (20 to 50 %) within the steel comprising the core and peripheral columns of the different buildings at the World Trade Center – but this is a quite different issue (and, there will be an extended discussion on precisely this topic later in the book).

One might also mention that during the creation of some of the cave complexes in the Tora Bora region of the mountains in Afghanistan bin Laden may have learned something about the use of explosives. On the other hand, what one learns during the sculpting out of space in rock does not necessarily have much transfer value to the bringing down of 110-storey steel-framed buildings via the burning of jet fuel – especially given that The 9/11 Commission Report seems to indicate on page 163 that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed learned about the drills which were used to excavate caves in Afghanistan, and, consequently, explosives may not have played all that big a role in those excavations

One also could make mention of the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that have been attributed to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. These are among the acts for which, correctly or not, the FBI has placed ‘Usama bin Laden on its wanted list – and not 9/11. In fact the actual nature of the indictment which issued forth from the grand jury proceedings in June 1998 involved charges arising out of the Somalia attack (Footnote 46, page 485, The 9/11 Commission Report).

However, the embassy tragedies were caused by car bombs. While ‘Usama bin Laden may, or may not, have had something to do with the authorization and logistics for those operations, the actual bombs for the embassy targets are likely to have been put together by someone other than bin Laden, but even if he did have something to do with the construction of those bombs, nevertheless, this is a long way from using jet fuel to bring about the melting of steel and the partial or complete collapse of steel-framed buildings.

So, once more, I return to the mysterious ‘experience’ to which the figure in the ‘smoking gun’ video is alluding, and I wonder what that experience could have been, and I wonder how such experience would have led him to be more optimistic than the others about the extent of damage which would issue from crashing planes into the twin towers. In fact, I find it – let us say – rather remarkable that the ideas offered by the individual in the ‘smoking gun’ video would turn out to resonate so strongly with the ‘findings’ of some of the people who wrote technical papers about what caused the WTC buildings to collapse. In any event, I consider the reported statements of the individual in the ‘smoking gun’ video about experience to be as problematic and questionable as is the contention that the person depicted in that same video is none other than ‘Usama bin Laden.

In any event, on September 16, 2001 and again on September 28, 2001, ‘Usama bin Laden released statements which proclaimed his innocence with respect to the events of 9/11. Among other things he is reported to have said: I stress that I have not carried out this act which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation. In the statement of September 28, 2001 which was reported through the Daily Ummat, a Pakistani paper, ‘Usama bin Laden said, among other things, that he was being framed.

‘Usama bin Laden’s denials were broadcast worldwide, but they were not released in the United States. At the time of those statements, the U.S. government urged the media not to release the statements by bin Laden – apparently fearing that there might be some sort of hidden message encoded within the statement which could serve as a trigger for further attacks by terrorist groups upon the United States. However, no such fears seem to be in evidence when the so-called ‘smoking gun’ video of December 13, 2001 was given widespread release within the United States.

People have to make up their own minds about the significance of all of the foregoing considerations. Nonetheless, as far as the FBI is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence in its possession which would tie ‘Usama bin Laden to the events of 9/11, and the information on the FBI wanted poster in relation to bin Laden reflects this by only making references to the embassy bombings as the reasons the FBI wishes to apprehend him.

Consequently, despite having been convicted again and again and again in the media frenzy which followed 9/11, perhaps, one should remember that in the American system of justice, the accused is given the presumption of innocence, and it is the task of the government to provide substantial evidence which indicates, beyond the standard set for grand jury proceeding, why that presumption of innocence should be removed in any given instance – in this case: ‘Usama bin Laden.

There is a distinction which needs to be drawn between whether, or not, someone committed a crime and whether, or not, the government has been able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such and such a person is guilty of the crime with which they have been charged. The government bears the burden of proof, not the accused, and according to the FBI, at the present time, the government does not have one shred of evidence which ties ‘Usama bin Laden to 9/11.

Is it possible that ‘Usama bin Laden is guilty of having conspired to bring about the events of 9/11 even though there is no evidence to indicate his guilt? Yes, this is possible.

Nevertheless, the reason why we have a jury system is to afford people protection against a rush to judgment of either the press or public. Moreover, the reason why we have a jury system in America is to protect individuals from being found guilty in the absence of incriminating evidence.

According to the principles of American jurisprudence, it is not enough for the government to believe someone is guilty of a crime. The government must be able to show through the presentation of a substantive case that someone is evidentially culpable and not merely guilty because of reputation or public vilification quite independent from factual considerations.

When going through the material in this book, I believe the reader should try to assume the role of a juror not only with respect to what I am saying but, as well, in conjunction with the things, people, and issues about which I am talking. The reader should consider herself or himself to be one of the members of my hypothetical grand jury. As such, the reader needs to try to keep in abeyance whatever preconceptions he or she may have about the events of 9/11 and look anew at the arguments, documents, and ‘facts’ which bear upon those events. The reader needs to be continually asking herself or himself whether the government has proven its case in accordance with the standard set by grand jury proceedings or whether there is good reason to conclude that there are substantial problems with the state’s official story of 9/11 – either partially or wholly.

Finally, none of the foregoing should be construed to be an attempt to exonerate, defend, or apologize for ‘Usama bin Laden. I am not a fan of his theology or politics, and if he is guilty of having committed terrorist acts – whether in conjunction with 9/11 or in relation to other acts where innocent lives have been taken -- I certainly am neither a supporter nor an admirer of his actions.

However, the American system of justice should not be about what we believe or suspect, nor should it be a function of our likes and dislikes, nor should justice be swayed by mere opinions. The process of justice should be tied to, and rooted in, what can be proven through a rigorously critical but impartial examination of available evidence ... presumably this all is entailed by those symbols of justice in which a woman is blindfolded while holding both a sword and weighing scales.

3 - Snake Plissken and The Bumble Planes

On the opening page of the first chapter in Debunking 9/11 Myths, the editors talk about the web site of A. K. Dewdney, a professor emeritus of computer science. While it is true that Professor Dewdney is a Professor Emeritus, 2004, at the University of Waterloo, he also is a Professor Emeritus in relation to the University of Western Ontario.

By way of full disclosure, I knew Dr. Dewdney many years ago, and I have visited with him in London, Ontario, ate meals in his house, and attended some sessions he had arranged on various topics at the University of Western Ontario. In fact, he and I belonged to the same spiritual group.

However, the editors get their facts wrong when they claim that Professor Dewdney "reports